West Bank Water Disparities

In a country where over half of the land is considered desert, meeting agricultural and urban water needs is extremely difficult. This is the case for Israel. Historically and internationally, Israel has been acclaimed for its achievements in transforming a difficult geographic terrain into bountiful land through a combination of innovation and technology. Yet, interwoven with these achievements is a theme that is always relevant for Israel’s history, disparity with the Palestinians.

In 1947, the UN designated the area now called the West Bank as Palestinian territory during the partition of the Palestinian state. During the Arab-Israeli War in 1948, Jordan gained control of the area, but in 1967 Israel gained control of the West Bank from Jordan.

Included in these transfers of the land was the most important resource for a semi-arid environment: its aquifers. Today, Israel consumes 80% of the water from the West Bank. Palestinians face severe handicaps in economic developments because of the lack of water available for consumption. Palestinians receive only about half the daily-recommended amount of water; in the rural areas the situation is even more desperate.

The distribution of the water from the three West Bank aquifers is telling. The Yarkon-Tanninim Aquifer supplies the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv area with 340 million cubic meters (MCM) of water a year and Palestinians with 20 MCM. The Nablus-Gilboa Aquifer supplies Israel with 115 MCM of water for agricultural needs and none for Palestinians. The third aquifer, The Eastern Aquifer, supplies 40 MCM to Israel and 60 MCM to Palestinians.

Israelis consume around 2000 MCM of water annually. Therefore, the water taken from the West Bank constitutes a full 25% of Israel’s water use each year. Unfortunately, the lopsided allocation of water is done legally under the Oslo Accord. The Israelis’ husbandry of water is something to be admired in their water recycling programs and other initiatives. What is not to be accepted is the chronic water shortage for the Palestinians, each of whom gets only one-fifth of what they are entitled to, while Israel thrives.

Sept 20, 2006

Cargill is not only a small community located near Walkerton (where I lived for several years), it is the name of a powerful corporation. Cargill Inc. declared revenues of $75.2 billion dollars in 2005. If compared with the GDPs of countries, Cargill would be ranked the fifty-fifth largest economy in the world, ahead of most of Africa, Latin America and the Middle East. Incredibly, the descendants of the founders of Cargill own 85% of the company. It is a private company that is not legally required to share information about its operations.

Cargill feeds billions of people worldwide. The company is the main supplier for Coca-Cola, Pepsi, McDonald’s, KFC, Pizza Hut – the list is extensive. The problem is that Cargill does not feed people because of humanitarian idealism; it feeds people to make money – at any cost.

A summary of the strategy for Cargill’s business goes as follows: the farmer is sold Cargill seed (or chicks, etc.), and then sold Cargill fertilizer (or hormones, etc.). Exact specifications are given for the way that the product is to be grown, and then Cargill buys the product from the farmer. If the crop fails, then Cargill is not liable and the farmer is indebted to Cargill. If the crop succeeds, Cargill controls the market and dictates what price the farmer will receive, as Cargill also own the processing plants for the crop. For Cargill Inc. it is all profit and no risk, the farmer takes the risk.

Cargill is an open proponent of free markets and globalization. It also supports mono-cropping agriculture and mechanized (therefore expensive) agriculture. The corporation is a major cause of deforestation in the Amazon Rainforest in Brazil. In Indonesia, thousands of acres of rainforest have been burned to plant crops for Cargill.

The revenues do not stay in the economies that desperately need them; they are horded by Cargill. The company is not often held liable for its environmental abuses; the farmers it ‘employs’ bear that responsibility. In a world that is striving to eliminate world hunger and environmental destruction, it would be prudent to question why one family controls most of the world’s food.

September 27, 2006

Canadians are currently facing repercussions from the decision by Prime Minister Mulroney to sign the NAFTA agreement. In one of the most short-sighted decisions by a national leader, Mulroney did not protect Canadian sovereignty over water resources. Water is not designated specifically as a vital resource, but can be treated as a commodity. This will lead to dangerous scenarios for Canada as the US rapidly depletes its resources.

The Ogallala aquifer extends through eight states in the US Midwest and is the world’s largest known aquifer. The aquifer’s water supports 20% of US agriculture. Used mostly for irrigation, the Ogallala is being rapidly depleted. Since the recharge rate of the aquifer is very slow, Ogallala water is essentially a non-renewable resource.

Water depletion is due in part to irresponsible overconsumption by the raising of crops that are not suited to growth in the mid-west. Cotton’s natural environment is a tropical or sub-tropical climate; its growth on semi-arid grassland plains is only possible by significant alteration of that environment. A water-dependent crop, the growing of cotton has been a major factor in the depletion of the Ogallala. Entwined with crop water consumption is legislation that artificially supports the growth of cotton through relief funds for crop failure.

Yet agriculture in this region is a significant portion of the US economy, $32 billion dollars a year. Rumours have circulated that the US has considered building a pipeline to feed agriculture in the Midwest via the Great Lakes. Luckily, there has been international cooperation between the northern states dependent on the Great Lakes and the governments of Ontario and Quebec to oppose this initiative.

For Canadians, this is an issue that cannot be ignored. We need a strong commitment from the federal government to protect Canada’s water heritage, it should not be left to provincial governments to do so. At the same time, both Canadians and Americans need to curb the excessive use of water by growing crops that are suited to local climates not merely suited for generating short-term cash incomes.